Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United Express Is Flying CRJ's From LAX To San!  
User currently offlineHockey55dude From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 213 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6155 times:

United Express is flying CRJ's from LAX to San starting NOV 1. Their are going to be 7 CRJ flights. They still will fly EMB 120's to San Diego. It will be operated by SkyWest.

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6103 times:

Haven't they been doing this already?!

FB05



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineHockey55dude From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 213 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

No. They have only been flying EMB 120's.

User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6042 times:

I think it's something like 3-4 CRJ flights on the weekdays, 7-8 on the weekends. I hope this becomes more than an occasional occurence on the SAN-LAX route!

The schedules show CRJs on SAN-LAX only for the month of November, I believe. No word yet on whether American Eagle will start flying ERJs on SAN-LAX. Eagle already parks RJs at the commuter terminal in SAN, but these are used on the 10 daily SAN-SJC flights.

Aaron G.


User currently offlineFlyingBanker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6008 times:

I have always wondered if UA made money on this route, with security and everything now, wouldn't it be cheaper and more time efficient to just drive or take Amtrak to SAN? I lived in Orange County for many years and I never thought once about flying to SAN. I guess it might be more for connecting passengers, anyone know about this?

User currently offlineFutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2605 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5968 times:

Most likley for connecting passengers FlyingBanker, I dont see the point in spending a vouple hundred dollars just to go through the airport hassle at both ends for a day trip up to L.A. from here.  Laugh out loud


Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineUadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5938 times:

san-lax is the same as cos-den......virtually no local traffic but all conx, san-lax must be doing well for ua and aa as they run alot between the two.


bus driver.......move that bus:)
User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

SAN-LAX is 15% of the departures at SAN. The RJ's will help the airspace quite a bit. They are moving to four flights per day, and 8 on the weekends. By late 2005 to early 2006, all Turboprops (SkyWest and Eagle) will be gone. Amen to that.

As for profitability:

RJ seat cost is about $39 for the trip. Fares: $86 each way, 21-day advance, $109 14-day, $119 7-day, and walk up $249. Current Load Factor: 85%. In other words. Yes, the route is very, very profitable. The flight time is the same, but the capacity increase per flight will reduce the number of trips slightly in the short term.


User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1606 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5758 times:

Most people using the commuter flights from SAN to LAX tend to connect to flights to Asia or the South Pacific including Australia and NZ. The only other category would be intrastate passengers trying to get to Santa Barbara, SBP, BFL, FAT & MRY where SAN has absolutely no service. Maybe more people are connecting to flights to Europe now that BA is gone. Everything else is a mixed bag because you can usually get around having to book thru LAX. Asian passengers must think SAN is some backwater town arriving here on 32 passenger turboprops. Can't wait for real jets.

I remember when every other flight stopped in L.A. before continuing onward. UA flights HAD to stop at LAX before continuing east before 1969.






Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineSuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5662 times:

I wouldn't say LAX-SAN is wildly profitable. The fares quoted are the local market fares that no one buys, since no one flies locally. They are buying $198 round trip fares SAN-LAX-Orlando. That prorates out to about a buck for SkyWest. Is it valuable flow traffic to UA, yes. Profitable, not on the local. The CRJ still costs $500-700 more to operate than the EM2 on this route. So the CRJ can only help if they can fill the incremental seats. It's too bad UA doesn't have Q400s. They cost the same to operate as a CRJ-200, but come with 20-28 more seats. Now that might make SAN-LAX profitable on the local and still be wildly valuable to the flow. Is Horizon listening?

User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5643 times:

I wouldn't say LAX-SAN is wildly profitable. The fares quoted are the local market fares that no one buys, since no one flies locally. They are buying $198 round trip fares SAN-LAX-Orlando. That prorates out to about a buck for SkyWest. Is it valuable flow traffic to UA, yes. Profitable, not on the local. The CRJ still costs $500-700 more to operate than the EM2 on this route. So the CRJ can only help if they can fill the incremental seats. It's too bad UA doesn't have Q400s. They cost the same to operate as a CRJ-200, but come with 20-28 more seats. Now that might make SAN-LAX profitable on the local and still be wildly valuable to the flow. Is Horizon listening?

SAN-LAX-SAN has been OO's most profitable route since 1992.

As for SkyWest Costs....

EMB-120 - $1,047 (Block Hour)
CRJ-200 - $1,170 (Block Hour)

IDOC (Indirect operating cost) is irrelivant and one would assume that the IDOC is lower on a per pax basis for a larger aircraft. The CRJ represents a savings in costs for SkyWest. On a unit basis, they save about $12 per seat. Furthermore, 20% of the SAN-LAX market is O&D for SkyWest. That alone pays for the trip. The connecting pax are gravy. SkyWest makes about $37 per connecting passenger.

[Edited 2003-10-31 06:33:56]

User currently offlineSuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5611 times:

Sorry, every route at SkyWest makes the same money (apart from incentives). They are a "fixed fee" carrier. They don't care if they have 50 pax or 0 pax on their planes. They don't care if they have 20% local or 100%. United is the one that loses the money. BTW- International pax show up in DOT reports as "local." It's much less than 20% local on an actual basis.

BBG - you previous post shows the CRJ-200 as a $1950 operating cost ($39 per seat). It can't be 1,170 in the next post. Unit costs are irrelevant unless you fill the extra seats. The same goes for the Q400 which costs the same to operate as the CRJ-200. If you only put 30 pax on the plane, the EM2 will make the most money. But if you can fill 45 seats or 60 seats the bigger plane will work better. But if your prorate fare is only $10-20 because the pax are going long haul, you better have a "fixed fee" arrangement.


User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5564 times:

The $1950 includes the IDOC. SkyWest carries on average 520 pax a day, each way for a total of 1,040 pax/day between SAN and LAX. This will represent an 80% LF for the RJ's.

User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5506 times:

Flying banker asked if it would be cheaper to take AMTRACK or drive...

The train does not go anywhere near LAX, requiring an expensive cab trip from downtown LA to the airport. Driving is another adventure. At roughly 100 miles from SAN to LAX the trip can take an hour and a half, or, as recently happened to me, 4+ hours. On top of that where do you park long term at LAX without having to mortgage your home?

A dedicatied high speed rail link, SAN/LAX would be a very nice thing....But then we would be sticking wings on pigs.  Smile

In many ways San Diego is a backwater. We are a destination, unlike LAX which is a throughpoint. (People come to San Diego for a purpose. People go through LA enrt other places.)


User currently offlineFlyLAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 154 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

2912n are you upset?

User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5422 times:

Upset?? Not at all...Did not mean to come across that way.  Smile

Bemused by the lack of foresight on the part of our civic leaders....San Diego is out of options for a new airport, and the ones being discussed are a bit silly. Even if the Marines were to pack up and leave Miramar tomorrow San Diego would still be a destination city. All we would have then is a big airport that would be under utilized. We could not even support ONE non stop flight to Europe, so what makes people think that with a new airport the skies would sudenly be filled with 747s/777s/A340s etc...??? (Yeah, a bit off topic I know.  Smile )

I am just happy to see the United CRJ's as they are something else to photograph. Now if we could just repaint them to something that looked nice.  Smile


User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1606 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5389 times:

2912n:

Hey, there's hope! Don't give up. We may have a small airport, but SAN is a place people want to go and eventually LAX won't be able to handle all the international traffic for the whole Southern California region.

If you're like me, I like Lindbergh Field being right in the middle of the city. I would hate to see it go. Besides, Miramar is too late. The runways would have to be aligned differently to avoid taking off towards University City and La Jolla. The military jets make a 50 degree (approx) turn off the runway to avoid residential areas...something I do not think would be good for an international airport.

We had a chance to get Miramar back in the 1950's and thought it was too far out to be of any good. We need one at Camp Pendleton (Stuart Mesa) which can serve both San Diego and Orange Counties keeping Lindbergh and John Wayne the way they are for local traffic. The site is next to the freeway and rail right-a-way that could draw passengers from north and south, hopefully with express rail. A modern facility here could rival LAX.




Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineLindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5345 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bah, all this excitement about RJs on the SAN-LAX run just goes to show how times have changed for the worse for the spotter and/or passenger, even if aircraft deployment is now a bit more rational for the airlines.

The Jan. 1985 OAG shows the following flying SAN-LAX:

Western 6x Daily 727
United 1x Daily 747
TWA 2x Daily L-1011, 727
Northwest Orient 2x Daily DC-10, 727
PSA 8x Daily MD-80
Republic Daily 1x 727
Frontier Daily 1x 737
And that's in addition to the scores of flights on Imperial using Bandits and Shorts 360s and Sun Aire Metros.

And don't forget the Delta 767 and Eastern 757s to ONT.


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5822 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5317 times:

SuperDash,

I believe that it is "nearly" every route makes the same money. In the past Skywest had operated some of the UAX flying such as FAT-LAS on their own.

In their last 8-K filing I also caught this statement:
"Effective August 1, 2003, the Company assumed responsibility for pricing, inventory control and scheduling of 16 EMB-120 Brasilia aircraft previously operated under its Delta Connection contract flying agreement."

So it looks like some of the DLConx flights are no longer fixed fee.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Ahhh, see I disagree with Pendelton.

The Marines are even less likely to give that up than they are to move from Miramar. Pendelton is the ONLY coastal access base they have on the west coast and far too much training is done there for them to move out. And to bring in a civil airport would mean stopping that training. (Tactical air, both fast movers and helicopters don't mix well with the Class B airspace needed by a major airport. On top of that you have artillery ranges that don't mix well either.)

I think in the very long run San Diego will somehow inherit Miramar. With the S-3's being deactivated over the next few years there will be open space at North Island which will remain important to the Navy in spite of a very strong NIMBY population in Coronado. OLF Imperial Beach could also again take on a larger role for the military, taking pressure off of Miramar.

If you look back at the history of the region there is an interesting parallell between the airport issues of today and port/rail issues of the late 1800's. San Diego has a far better natural port than LA, but we had no rail link. Each city politicked for a direct rail line to the east, LA won and becuase of that became the powerhouse in shipping and manufacturing/business that it is today. San Diego had the opportunity and lost it. As noted San Diego had the opportunity to have Miramar as a civil airport back in the 50's, one which could have been eventually turned into a major regional airport, serving the needs of Southern California, much in the way that LAX does today. But our local government, being short sighted, blew it and rejected the offer. ooops.

What I see is Lindbergh continuing to feed flights to LA and other points east. March ARB will eventually take on more pax traffic to relieve pressure on LAX. (more cargo will eventually route through March, which has great freeway and rail access.)

Sadly todays local government in San Diego is still stuck in a "how to do it cheap, we are a small town" mindset. Just look at the fires of this week...The government would never properly fund the needed fire and police protection and we paid for it. (Incidently, the San Diego Police Department was able to evacuate something on the order of 25,000 people in less than three hours with no injuries to citizens. But this stripped the rest of the city bare of any police protection. The only available fire crews left to protect the area I live in, which was immediatly threatend by the Otay fire were the crash crews from OLF Imperial Beach...in crash trucks!! Fine for aircrash, piss poor for brush fires, but they did the best job possible.)

Cheers, Tony


User currently offlineAzncsa4QF744ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5276 times:

I think it's great that UA is finaly adding bigger jets to its current turboprop route.

User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1606 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5205 times:

2912n:

I didn't like the Pendleton idea at first either until I looked at some maps.

Stuart Mesa is a site for military housing, farming and the Oceanside VOR, so I deduct that no artillery practice goes on there. There is a freeway and rail nearby too. All military maneuvers seem to be further north and east of Stuart Mesa, more towards Fallbrook. Unfortunately, the military housing at Stuart Mesa would have to be relocated. Never an easy feat. However, the trade off is that the Marines would have access to a nice long runway in their backyard. Right now Munn Field, located on Camp Pendleton, is only 6000 feet in a box canyon.

Camp Pendleton southern MOA boundary goes roughly from Morro Hill (a boundary landmark for Camp Pendleton on the eastern fringe near Bonsall) to the OCN VOR in a 6/24 heading, the same heading as Palomar Airport. This little corner of Camp Pendleton, not devoted to bombing, can be worked with. Little over one mile north of the proposed flight path is a hospital for the base so I can say with confidence they don't practice bombing up there.

Closer to the Stuart Mesa site, the flight path would go over a golf course located in a canyon 4NM from touch down, that's about it (I deduct they do not bomb there either). The flight path would be north of the Oceanside city limit but south of Camp Pendleton sub-divisions. Bosall is the only community effected and is located over 10NM out. Prevailing wind departures would be over some vineyards before heading out to sea. The OCN VOR and is located about 2NM north of the Oceanside marina and is across the freeway from the airport site.

I did not like Stuart Mesa at first because of all the dirt that would have to moved. It is not exactly flat. But after seeing how CLK was built, this is nothing.

Stuart Mesa combined with March Field and Palmdale north or L.A. should take care of most of the airport problems in Southern California (for now anyway). Express Rail is a must, however.






Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineJC5280 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 530 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5137 times:

FATflyer...from my understanding, those are called at-risk flights and LAX-SGU, FAT-LAS and LAS-PSP are the only ones. Do you know of any other?

I think all revenue goes to OO on those.



User currently offlineBoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

Coronado and 2912....

Why don't you leave the airport sitting to the pro's eh! Miramar is not the only site. Several are under consideration, including a new greenfield site just located in Campo. It's not about doing it cheap either. The plan is up to $10 Billion. You can blame the lack of foresight on the airports former operator, the Port District. Miramar was available for build in 1984. The Port fought with the City over who would operate the airport. When the City demanded operational control, the Port refused to release funds for the proper studies. Next thing you know, Miramar is a Marine base and not a commercial airport.

As for re-alignment of runways. The only reason the runways would be re-aligned it to move the runway east and provide 5,000 feet of separation for simultaneous CAT III operations, not for noise abatement. Both runways would be 12,000 by 250 or 300 feet. Dual taxiways and 90-100 gates. San Diego's only true problem is the lack of runway space. You can build terminals until the cows come home, but a single runway can only handle so many flights.

The last option available is use of new technology. This would be the joining of SAN, SNA and LAX by high speed maglev or monorail and the joint construction of a commercial facility at March ARB. Such an operation would force mandatory elimination of commuters between these city's and relocation of international and trans continental flights to March. Basically, any flight East of the Mississippi goes to March. This of course is a worst case senario if a site does not become a possibility. There is also the Campo site using maglev or high speed monorail to get to it (a 7 minute trip from downtown). If such a facility is built, SAN would be parking and ticket counter space, the Campo site would be gates and runways.


User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1606 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

BoingGoingGone:

Campo gets snow and high winds. Can you imagine flying to San Diego for a vacation and getting off in the snow. Plus de-icing equipment would be necessary. The recent wildfires should tell you this is not a good site either. It was calm on the coast but the mountains had gusts up to 50 mph fanning the flames. Plus getting rail up there is a hassle.

Pendleton is right next to existing rail lines that can serve Orange County as well as San Diego County, which is necessary in attracting flights. It would have 7M people to feed from less than 50 miles in each direction.











Uncle SAN at your service!
25 2912n : BoeingGone- Excuse me for discussing options for the airport and not being an "expert." I bow to your obviously superior knowledge...Shheeesshhhh Camp
26 Flyboy7974 : first question for lindy field, where did you find the info from the 1985 oag guide, i am looking for old ones, next comment, there is some high yield
27 Lindy field : Flyboy, My university's main library has a collection of old OAGs, ranging in six-month intervals from about 1970-1990, and then with less frequency t
28 Post contains links BoingGoingGone : "Campo gets snow and high winds. Can you imagine flying to San Diego for a vacation and getting off in the snow. Plus de-icing equipment would be nece
29 FSPilot747 : LAX to SAN in a CRJ? What's that going to be, like a 4 minute flight? FSP
30 Post contains images UAL Bagsmasher : It's getting harder and harder to find a turboprop route these days. But hey...all the whiny pax have to have their jet service because it is so much
31 Coronado990 : I did a lot of camping up in those mountains and trust me, it gets windy all along the drop off to the desert from the border on north. It's the tempe
32 BoingGoingGone : Coronado. Wrong. Just plain wrong. The Campo spot is completely flat. You find some interesting things with GIS mapping. They will also remove the cur
33 Trvlr : On the subject of the airport--I've said this a million times and I'll say it again. Miramar is the only viable choice for San Diego. We could try Cam
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is Flight Time From ALT To LAX On Their 67-4? posted Thu Mar 22 2001 01:15:24 by AirTangora
Is UAL Moving From SFO To Lax? posted Wed Jun 9 1999 05:39:15 by Delta727
Non-Reving From LAX To Asia/Australia posted Sat Jul 29 2006 06:27:21 by Nygfan84
Transportation From OAK To San Francsico Downtown posted Wed Jan 11 2006 05:21:53 by Lahaina
Flying LCC From AKL To MNL Or CEB Possible? posted Thu Jan 5 2006 12:03:59 by Aviationfreak
Virgin 7/8 To/from LAX To Be A346? posted Thu Jul 28 2005 05:36:32 by AirxLiban
Who Flys From LAX To NAN? posted Fri Feb 25 2005 11:05:52 by JumpJet
What Does Southwest Fly From Philly To San Diego? posted Wed Feb 9 2005 17:38:28 by Tockeyhockey
Is EasyJet Changing From LCC To A Mid Cost Carrier posted Fri Oct 15 2004 15:08:02 by BCAL
How Is Independence Air From IAD To ROC? posted Tue Aug 3 2004 22:49:07 by Collegestud